David G. Durand wrote:
>>> since we are going to keep the weird semantics of SGML content models...
>>> we've already given up the hope that anyone can apply well known
theory, or
>Joe English wrote:
>>?!?
David G. Durand wrote:
>Way back when, Tim Bray posted the following, in the
>"Report from the SGML ERB meeting of Oct. 9th":
>>>A.27 XML will behave like SGML as regards behavior and precedence
>>>of occurrence indicators and connectors in content models
>That means the whole ball of wax, to me.
No. It means that to the extent that we have () and | and ,
and * and PCDATA and so on in XML content models, they mean the
same thing as they mean when they appear in SGML content models.
Between the things that we've turfed and the things that we're
going to turf, there is going to be A LOT LESS allowed in XML
content models. With the explicit aim, as reflected in our design
goals, of making parsers easy and in particular susceptible to
standard formal methods.
And specifically, let's lose the &. Not that it isn't useful... but
the ROI is negative.
Cheers, Tim Bray
tbray@textuality.com http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-488-1167